The Androgynous "God/dess"

"Bishop" Nicholas DiMarzio (b. 1944) is the chief-layman of the Vatican II sect's Diocese of Brooklyn. He has been accused by two men of sexual abuse when he was a "priest" of the sect's Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey. DiMarzio has vigorously denied the charges and is considering a lawsuit against his accusers for deformation. (See catholicnewsagency.com/news/brooklyn-bishop-dimarzio-denies-libelous-accusations-of-abuse-24602). Whether or not he's guilty of abuse remains to be determined. As to the charge of heresy, DiMarzio's guilt has never been in doubt. Many in the Vatican II sect are once more pushing the idea of God as Father/Mother, and using "inclusive language" (i.e., language that refers to both genders, or is gender neutral). On the Brooklyn diocesan website, there is an interesting piece entitled, "Should We Refer to God as Father or Mother?" which informs the reader as follows:

Faith in God as the "Father" is known in many religions of the world. In Israel, God is called "Father" inasmuch as he is the Creator of the universe. Even more, God is Father because of the covenant and the gift of law to Israel, "his first-born son." God is also called the Father of the king of Israel. In a very special way, he is "the Father of poor," of the orphaned and the widowed, who are embraced by his loving care. According to the [heretical 1992] Catechism of the Catholic Church, "by calling God “Father, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children." God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood that emphasizes God’s intimacy between Creator and creature. However, this experience also teaches us that human parents are fallible and can therefore disfigure the face of the fatherhood and motherhood. While people tend to make distinctions between the sexes, God transcends such distinction. In other words, he is neither man nor woman: he is God. (Emphasis mine).

Well, God is immaterial, correct? Also, the Bible tells us "There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28; Emphasis mine). There is a push by feminists in the Vatican II sect to remove "sexist" language from the Bible and their "liturgy." The renewed push is being joined by the perverts in the "transgender rights" movement. After all, if God has no sex and can be both male and female, then can't we express whatever gender we prefer? This post will set forth the case against the "androgynous god/dess" that feminists, transgenders, and "eco-theology" "Mother Earth" worshipers would like to gain acceptance. They want to make God in their image.  

The Arguments for "Gender Bias"

Those seeking an "inclusive language" Bible and worship service (I would never dignify the Novus Bogus with the appellation of "Mass"), understand all too well the meaning of "lex orandi lex credendi" (loosely translated as "the law of prayer is the law of belief"). If you make the sign of the Cross and pray, "In the Name of God the Creator, and of God the Redeemer, and of God the Sanctifier," how you think about God will change. When the Modernists replaced the Mass with a Protestant-Masonic bread and wine service, they made changes that would (and did) affect beliefs. 

To give two examples, the traditional Offertory of the Mass was replaced by a prayer asking God to make the host "the bread of life" and the wine "our spiritual drink." Neither phrase expresses Transubstantiation or the Real Presence; they could mean anything. In the True Mass, when the Host is given in Communion, the phrase "May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul to everlasting life" is recited by the priest while making the sign of the cross over each communicant who is kneeling, and then placed on the recipient's tongue. The Modernists hand out the cracker to people standing, and put it in their hand. The President (or an "Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist [sic]") says, "The Body of Christ," to which the recipient responds, "Amen." They rejected the proposed words "This is the Body of Christ" because it is too specific. 

"Body of Christ" could refer to the people and you often will see inane signs in the Vatican II sect temples that say, "We are One Bread and One Body." The host could be a symbol of how each person participates in the "body of Christ" (Church).  The recipient responding "Amen" is exactly what many Protestant so-called "Reformers" did when they eliminated the Mass and rejected the Real Presence. The spiritual (not Real) presence is dependent on the faith of the people--"Amen," unlike Transubstantiation which effectuates the Real Presence whether you believe in It or not. The result? According to a 2019  Pew Research Poll, only 31% of the Vatican II sect members in the United States believe in the Real Presence (which they don't have, but it is still "on the books" as an official teaching---See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/05/transubstantiation-eucharist-u-s-catholics/ ). 

In order to make a new concept of God, a decidedly androgynous one, there is a movement in the Vatican II sect to regard God as male and female, and use inclusive language to cement this concept in the minds of their members. The arguments used to advance this agenda are basically four:

1. God is a Spirit. Therefore any terms we use to describe Him are purely metaphorical. There is no reason not to refer to God in feminine or gender neutral language.

2. The Bible also sometimes refers to God in feminine terms, so there's nothing wrong with using such language.

3. God is referred to in masculine terms because of the culture in which the Bible was written. Christ became a Man instead of a woman because that was the only way to be heard in a patriarchal culture. 

4. God loves us all equally as Galatians 3:28 states. No one should feel excluded by dated male terminology.We are all made in the image and likeness of God. 

Each of these arguments will be addressed.

God Revealed Himself

Reply to argument 1. There are three texts from the Bible often cited by feminists to prove God is gender neutral. Numbers 23:19 says, "God is not a man that He should speak falsely, nor human that He should change His mind. Is He one to speak and not act, to decree and not fulfill?"In similar fashion, 1 Kings 15:29 states: "The Glory of Israel neither retracts nor repents, for He is not man that He should repent." Hosea 11:9 reads: "I will not give vent to My blazing anger, I will not destroy Ephraim again; For I am God and not man, the Holy One present among you; I will not let the flames consume you."

Numbers 23 refers to God  being faithful to His promises, and not "overcome by threats" like a man (See theologian Haydock, The Douay-Rheims Old Testament with a Comprehensive Catholic Commentary, [1859], pg. 188). 1 Kings is about the same theme (Ibid, pg. 359).  Both verses stress the absolute veracity of God as the Supreme Being Who is true to His promises. God is not human, hence He is not capable of lying or changing His Mind like humans. Neither text states or even implies, however, that because God is not human, he is not masculine or isn't to be spoken of in exclusively masculine language. In fact, while asserting that God is not human, the text applies masculine pronouns to God. Nothing in the texts suggest God may rightly be spoken of in female as well as male language. In Hosea (or Osse), God is not subject to the desire for revenge (Ibid, pg. 1120). This means that God is superior to humans and not that He is androgynous, or that masculine terms do not/should not apply.  

Reply to argument 2. Commonly cited passages for justifying using feminine terms (or gender neutral terms) for God are Deuteronomy 32:18, which refers to "the Rock that begot thee ... the God who gave thee birth." Psalm 22:10 says of the Lord, "Thou hast been my guide since I was first formed, my security at my mother's breast. To Thee I was committed at birth, from my mother's womb Thou art my God." In the former text, God is compared to a mother in "giving birth" to the Jews; in the latter text He is seemingly compared to a midwife.

Psalm 131:2 says, "I have stilled and quieted my soul like a weaned child. Like a weaned child on its mother's lap [so is my soul within me.]" David applies this language to God, suggesting a maternal image of Him. Also, in Isaiah 42:14, it depicts God as saying, "I cry out as a woman in labor, gasping and panting." Notice well that these passages compare God to a woman, but do not declare God to be a woman. No where in the Bible or in Sacred Tradition is God thought of as female or gender neutral. The same type of feminine comparison is made of Moses. In Numbers 11:12, Moses asks, "Have I given birth to this people?" Does this imply Moses to be a woman? Transgender? A hermaphrodite? This is sheer grasping at straws.

Reply to argument 3. This assumes the Almighty God, Creator and Master of All, is somehow beholden to His creatures and must conform to their whims. It's actually quite blasphemous. Maleness is a reflection of God's role as the Creator and as King of all that exists, and He came in the fullness of time. In other words, He came when it was right to do so, not because this happened "by accident" thereby "making" Him conform to societal standards. God designed the family to be led by the husband, assisted by his wife. The husband is the head of the family; the wife is the heart of the family (See Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii).God revealed Himself to us as masculine. This is recorded in the Bible, of which God is the Author, of His revelation in Sacred Tradition, and in His Incarnation as the Man-God Jesus Christ.

Reply to argument 4. Yes, God loves us all, and we are all His creation. He died for all, even though all are not, in fact, saved. Two points need to be made:

(A) The Different Roles of Men and Women.
In marriage, women are the heart of the home, while the man is the head of the household. This in no way makes women inferior; the greatest human being was the Blessed Virgin Mary. (Christ was both True God and True Man, Mary was only human).God set up a specific order, and men are not to be subject to the authority of women in the home or in the Church.

(B) The Image of God.
Although God is Spirit, He created man in His image and likeness. Woman was created from man. Therefore, men are directly in the image of God, and women are indirectly in the image of God. This is one of the reasons women cannot be validly ordained as "priestesses." St. Bonaventure, Doctor of the Church, explains that Holy Orders does not look to the soul alone, but to the soul united to the body, and by this reason the signification [of God's image] is produced which must be a visible sign.  Men are therefore directly in the image of God, Who has called Himself "Father," and Whose Son [masculine reference] took on a male body. Men can therefore signify the Image of God and Christ in a direct manner, which women cannot do. (See theologian Wahl, The Exclusion of Women from Holy Orders, CUA Press, [1959], pgs. 45-55).

A "God" of Their Own Making

According to theologians McHugh and Callan, the sin of superstition consists of either a vice that offers improper worship to the true God, or divine worship of a false god. Offering false worship would be accomplished by e.g., opposing the truth of religion, like using Old Testament rites that signify Christ is yet to come. (See Moral Theology, [1930], 2:359). However, having a distorted view of the true God, and having a false god that is worshiped seems to be a fine line. 

It is a fact that Catholics and Mohammedans do not worship the same God. Christians worship the Triune God—Father, Son and Holy Ghost—and no other god. Allah is a false moon god. In Romans 1:19-20, St. Paul explains that all people have some real knowledge of God by general revelation, so that they are without excuse for not knowing that God exists. However, speaking at Mars Hill in Athens (Acts 17), St. Paul argued that even some of the Greeks’ own philosophers and poets gave evidence of a rudimentary knowledge of God—but this was not a saving knowledge, and the Apostle was brokenhearted when he saw the Athenians at worship.

When it comes to the androgynous "God/dess" of the feminist, transgenders, etc, we definitely have the sin of false worship, but could the conception of the Trinity be so skewed as to constitute idolatry of a false god, like Allah? A human illustration may help make my point. Donald Trump is currently the President of the United States. George W. Bush and Barack Obama are living former presidents. Suppose someone who knew nothing of Trump as a person and little of the American form of government, pieced enough information together and concluded that the most politically powerful person in the United States lives in Washington D.C., that he is a former Senator from Illinois, and that he is called Commander-in-Chief George W. Trump. Here is my query: Does this conclusion offer a poor and distorted, though partially correct, representation of the real President Trump? Or is it a construct that combines pieces of three men who hold/held the presidency into an imaginary person whose title, although accurate in the abstract, misrepresents the president and casts him as a primarily military figure? Is it a poor construct of fact, or is it fiction?

Is depriving the First Person of the Most Blessed Trinity of His masculinity by calling Him "God the Creator," or "God the Father/Mother" an inept representation or is it a new "god/dess"? When Christ is never referred to by His Title of  God the Son or even Son of Man, is it truly the Christ of Catholicism distorted, or is it the beginning of ecological-feminist-transgender "Gaia" worship? The consequences of this new "inclusive language" and conception of "God/dess" is staggering.

Conclusion

Mr. DiMarzio and his fellow pseudo-bishops of the Vatican II sect are pushing for a new and perverse way to think and talk about God. It is significant that the Deposit of Divine Revelation, given to us by God Himself, describes Him in masculine terms. Given the centrality of God's masculine description in Revelation, it is hard to understand how abandoning this exclusively masculine language for God is anything other than abandoning Divine Revelation itself and therefore jettisoning the True God for a feminized, emasculated, transgendered, and androgynous idol.